Orissa HC Upholds Reinstatement of Police Recruit Who Did Not Know of Criminal Cases Filed Against Her

The Orissa High Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that a police recruit's negative disclosure in her Verification Roll was not false because she genuinely had no knowledge of the cases against her.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, on 22 June 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State of Odisha against a Single Bench order directing the reinstatement of Sagarika Parida, a police recruit, with all consequential benefits. The State had challenged her reinstatement on the ground that she had suppressed information about pending criminal cases in the Verification Roll submitted at the time of employment. The Division Bench found that a departmental report had already confirmed she was unaware of those cases, and that her discharge — founded on a mechanical reading of non-disclosure — could not be sustained under the standards set by the Supreme Court.

The Discharge and the Writ Petition Before the Single Bench

Sagarika Parida had been discharged from service by an order dated 12 November 2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters). The sole basis for her discharge was that she had made a false and incorrect statement in Clause 7 of her Verification Roll, which required her to disclose whether she had ever been accused in a criminal case or had ever been in prison. She declared in the negative on both counts.

The authorities subsequently detected that three criminal cases had been registered against her. One of those cases had resulted in her acquittal on 4 August 2017 — just seventeen days before she submitted her Verification Roll on 21 August 2017. The other two cases were registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and were disposed of either at the National Lok Adalat level or by findings that she was not guilty.

Parida challenged the discharge order before the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.32287 of 2020. On 25 September 2025, the Single Bench allowed the writ petition, quashed the discharge order, directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ordered that the period of discharge be treated as “on duty” with financial benefits to be calculated and disbursed within a stipulated time. The State then filed W.A. No.357 of 2026 before the Division Bench.

The State's Position and the Factual Record

Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate for the State, argued that the respondent was serving in a disciplined organisation that demands a high standard of moral character, and that conscious suppression of the existence of criminal cases should be viewed seriously. He submitted that non-disclosure by a person in a uniformed service could not be treated leniently.

The Division Bench, however, drew attention to a report by the Additional DCP, Crime, Commissionerate Headquarters, Bhubaneswar, dated 22 February 2019. That report recorded the finding that the respondent was not aware of any of the cases registered against her and that even the disposal of one case by acquittal had occurred in her absence. The report concluded that the information furnished by her in the Verification Roll could not, on that basis, be termed false.

Critically, the Division Bench noted that this report had not been controverted or challenged at any stage of the proceedings. Once a fact-finding authority had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent lacked knowledge of the registration of those cases at the relevant time, the foundation for the discharge order — wilful suppression of material information — was absent.

The Legal Framework: Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar

The bench applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. That judgment set out a detailed framework governing the consequences of non-disclosure of criminal antecedents in attestation and verification forms. The Division Bench extracted the relevant propositions at length.

Avtar Singh held that suppression of “material information” presupposes that what is suppressed actually matters, and that every technical or trivial matter does not constitute suppressible information. The employer must act on due consideration of applicable rules and cannot exercise the power of termination arbitrarily. The judgment laid down that the nature of the post, the nature of duties, and the impact of any suppression on suitability must all be weighed. It also made clear that before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him or her.

Of particular relevance was clause 38.8 of Avtar Singh, which stated that if a criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, the matter may still have an adverse impact, but the appointing authority must take a decision after considering the seriousness of the crime — not discharge the employee mechanically.

The bench also relied on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, reported in AIR (2022) SC 2829. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside the discharge of a constable where the criminal case was of a trivial nature and the candidate's knowledge of it at the time of submitting the attestation form could not be established. The Supreme Court had directed reinstatement with notional benefits but without arrears of salary for the period of non-service.

Drawing on both decisions, the Division Bench held that where the respondent did not have knowledge of a pending criminal case, a negative disclosure in the Verification Roll should not by itself attract serious penal consequences such as removal or termination from service.

Why the Discharge Order Could Not Stand

All three criminal cases against Parida had concluded in her favour. One ended in acquittal before she even submitted her Verification Roll, and the other two were disposed of without any finding of guilt. The Division Bench observed that the State's submission that those cases were pending did not appear to be factually correct when examined in full.

The argument that one case was pending on the date of submission of the Verification Roll, and that she ought to have disclosed it even if she was unaware, was addressed directly. The bench held that once the fact-finding authority — the Additional DCP — had found her account of ignorance to be true, and that finding had not been challenged, the employer could not impose a penal consequence on the basis of suppression.

The bench rejected the mechanical approach urged by the State. The emphasis in both Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar is on objectivity: the employer must assess suitability on relevant factors, not simply visit discharge upon an employee whenever a discrepancy between a form and the factual record is later detected. Where knowledge cannot be attributed to the employee and the cases themselves have ended without adverse findings, discharge from a disciplined force is not a proportionate response.

Order

The Division Bench dismissed W.A. No.357 of 2026, finding no illegality or infirmity in the Single Bench's decision. It held that Parida's case fell squarely within the principles in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar. The reinstatement order with all consequential benefits, and the direction to treat the period of discharge as “on duty” with financial benefits to be calculated and disbursed within the stipulated time, was affirmed. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.